75 damage, and the situations in which they must be redressed. 276. The Commission did not request the Court for pecuniary measures, related to pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage. The representatives did not specifically request compensation for pecuniary damage, but they did request the Court to order the State to establish an equitable compensation to each of the victims for the “moral damage” caused by the suffering resulting from the violations committed after April 1, 2000. Additionally, they requested a specific sum for the reparation of damages caused to the surviving victim Ramiro Osorio Cristales. The State requested the Court to take into consideration the economic reparations already granted, and considered inadmissible the requirement of a new payment, as it considers the payment performed to the victims fair, adequate, and effective. 277. In this regard, the State indicated that it had complied with the commitment regarding the agreed economic compensation, which included the payment of quantities corresponding to loss of earnings, general damage, and “moral damage” to the list of victims identified on August 30, 2001 by the “Comisión Especial de Búsqueda” (Special Search Committee), corresponding to 71 family groups. Additionally, in 2006 it also compensated a group of people who approached COPREDEH in 2004 declaring that they were relatives of those deceased in the massacre, and claimed that they had not received any compensation. Consequently, the State considers the representatives’ request inadmissible, as the compensation process was broad and ended in 2006, and during that time 40 more victims were redressed. Likewise, the State expressed that Ramiro Osorio Cristales has already received a compensation, for the alleged violations, for an amount agreed with the representatives. a) Compensations granted by the State during the proceeding before the Commission, as part of the agreement between the parties 278. The Court notes that from the evidence submitted by the parties, it derives that pursuant to the “Agreement on Economic Reparation” signed by the State and the representatives during the proceeding before the Commission, the State was obligated to compensate the surviving victims of the massacre and next of kin of the deceased for Q.14.500.000 (fourteen million five hundred quetzales), which would be paid according to the “criteria approved by the parties.” Likewise, in the answer to the application the State indicated that the reparation amounts were agreed as follows: for general damages each family group was awarded Q. 15.440 (fifteen thousand, four hundred and forty quetzales); for the loss of earnings Q. 50.000 (fifty thousand quetzales); for the moral damage to each victim, murdered or surviving, Q. 26.300 (twenty-six thousand three hundred quetzales), and for judicial costs and expenses Q. 820.754.72 (eight hundred and twenty thousand seven hundred and four quetzales with seventy-two cents). The Court notes that the payments277 were effectively made to 125 beneficiaries278. have a causal connection to the facts of the case.” Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra note 260, para. 43; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 23, para. 182, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 28, para. 111. 276 The Court has established that non-pecuniary damage “may include both the suffering and distress caused to the direct victims and their next of kin, and the impairment of values that are highly significant to them, as well as other sufferings, of a non-pecuniary nature, related to the conditions of existence of the victim or their family.” Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra note 263, para. 84; Case of Garibaldi v. Brasil, supra note 23, para. 189, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 28, para. 111. 277 The amounts ranged between US$3,354.92 (three thousand three hundred fifty-four dollars with ninety-two cents) and US$60,681(1)1 (sixty thousand six hundred eighty-one dollars and eleven cents). Likewise, the Court observes that some compensations were paid individually and others were delivered to the representative of a family group.